Busted for possession of (lake) weed – need attorney/legal help

I’m amazed and surprised by the number of people saying “it’s a waste of time and money” or “you knew and you broke the law”. I bet you are the same people that were full force behind Fellegy and his efforts against netting and probably even donated money to him. There are instances when it isn’t about time or money and more about something you believe in. I know a guy who drove 140 miles each way last week just to be present for the last 5 minutes of an AIS meeting to make sure his agenda item was discussed.

Should we be expected to roll around in the puddles under our boat sometimes at 1am in the dark to find a strand of weed that might have lodged between the bunk and trailer or got up into the suspension? That’s totally absurd. You know darn well at these roadside checks they made sure to look in the places people would have a hard time accessing just so they could show they were finding stuff that was overlooked and to show how good of a job they were doing. Why wouldn’t they? If I was being paid to crawl under a boat and look for weed, you bet your life I’d find some and I certainly would put more time and effort into doing such as opposed to dog tired coming off the water and not wanting to roll around in the dirt before heading home.

Good Luck David, I sure hope you are able to not only get your citation overturned, but more importantly demonstrate to the State that our constitutional rights are much more important than a few snails or weeds finding their way into a lake. I would suggest using Christmas Lake as an example of how roadside checks, inspectors and wash stations failed miserably.

AIS laws are the 911 of the fishing world. (no disrespect to the folks that lost their lives)

Fishing will never be the same in MN again unless we can get a Governor that will give the direction to reverse some of this nonsense. What Governor (or candidate) would take this unpopular stand? With all the media hype it would be committing political suicide.
…and there’s more to come!

Think I’m going over the top? Think about it.

Minnesotans!

In most states it wouldn’t be an unpopular stance. You just say, “I’d like to put the fun back in fishing by repealing the AIS laws that are a government intrusion on our freedom to fish, boat and recreation (and are a pain in the putootski)”.

The problem you have is I am guessing that although a ton of people boat and fish, you still might not be in a majority. And there are a ton of people who get behind anything that is or appears to be part of the “Green Movement”. I am guessing too that you have a lot of fishermen and boaters who support the laws.

Brian Klawitter for Governor?
Here’s a campaign slogan for you BK
“Taking the stinkbait out of politics and giving it back to the fish!”
I’d vote for you.

Were were you in ’08 when I was running for President??

I PREDICT…

Within the next 8 years most of the ais laws will go the way of the Metro Area Vehicle Emission Testing.

Right before Ventura closed them down they came out with a press release stating how many tons of sulfur and other pollutants the kept out of our air. Yea

dtro wrote:

I’m amazed and surprised by the number of people saying “it’s a waste of time and money” or “you knew and you broke the law”. I bet you are the same people that were full force behind Fellegy and his efforts against netting and probably even donated money to him.

How in the world are these two related?!

He didn’t say they were related. He only said that those people are missing the big picture. Living in the moment waiting for the next “crisis”.

biggill wrote:

He didn’t say they were related. He only said that those people are missing the big picture. Living in the moment waiting for the next “crisis”.

Thank you

I bet they are the same people who vote for Franken and Dayton.

biggill wrote:

He didn’t say they were related. He only said that those people are missing the big picture. Living in the moment waiting for the next “crisis”.

No. He says they are the “same people”. i.e-related
At least two of you know what that means.
BTW-what is you boys problem with Joe Fellegy????

Lemme clear it up. He said how many of you are all for Fellegy fighting things in court for change, that is what the original OP is doing……/kind of, so why not support one but not the other?

If you want these laws changed you need to get a legislator on your side. Plain and simple. A County Judge isn’t going to buck this state law. Just remember there are many lawyers, judges, legislators and campaign donors that have big houses on lakes. The last thing they want is their property values to drop. They voted for the law and they want the law. This isn’t one that civil disobedience is going to change.

PB2 wrote:

I remember when a DNR officer did not need to ask permission to enter your ice shack and the courts said that to be illegal.

Yeah, one of the worse things ever to happen our PUBLIC resources was when the DNR busted that crackhead stuffing drugs down the ice hole.
It really hampers the Conservation officers ability to police and protect the tax paying publics resources.

Really??? Are you serious???

Have you read the constitution???

http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/my-rights-at-checkpoints/

Save the Date Jan. 20-21 St. Cloud AIS Conference see URL below

http://www.ifound.org/community/aquatic-invasive-species/aquatic-invaders-summit

I’m so glad I don’t own a boat any longer. I wonder what this is going to do to tourism when the word gets out more and more. I explained some of this silliness to my Dad last week again. He once again stated he will never pull his boat to Minnesota.

And just to think we along the river, and fish and hunt the river, have to put up with this crap. Try and have young kids full of pissin vinegar wanting to put in or take out a boat on your side of the river? Kinda takes the fun out of a quick road trip. WOW MN!

Doesn’t anyone care about the children? The Children!

mplspug wrote:

Doesn’t anyone care about the children? The Children!

Dayton does, that’s why fireworks are illegal in MN.

Once you move to Florida, don’t you lose the right to comment on how the liberal tree hugging silliness impacts us?

In short…no.

Just know that when I say I’m from Minnesota they say, at least you aren’t from Wisconsin….

suzuki wrote:

BTW-what is you boys problem with Joe Fellegy????

uhhh; I believe the Fellegy being referred in the above posts was, Joe’s brother, STEVE

In related news, don’t get caught growing Okra in Georgia

It’s easy to take the weeds off. Its all this typing that kills me

David wrote:

In addition, the DNR has requested, and I have to assume will continue to request, the legislature (and Minnesota Judicial Council) to significantly increase the fines to the level of fish and game violations. It is unknown whether this will include increasing it from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor and/or a payable offense to a criminal offense including a minimum of 90 days in jail. The most recent information I have indicates that the DNR has not yet requested a change from a civil violation to a criminal violation.

I wrote the above 2 weeks ago. At that point in time, I was still working under the information I was given by the Minnesota State Court Administration when I called them to ask about my citation, back in September. At that point in time, I was told it was a $130 penalty and that I could contest it in court.

As a reminder, the state statute in question is this: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=84D.09#stat.84D.09.1

That’s chapter 84D, section 84D.09, subdivision 1, which reads:

…
Subdivision 1.Transportation prohibited. Unless specifically authorized under a license or permit issued by the commissioner, a person may not transport aquatic macrophytes, except as provided in this section.
…

$100 of that penalty comes from this: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=84D.13#stat.84D.13.5

That’s chapter 84D, section 84D.13, subdivision 5, of which the first numbered item reads:

…
Subd. 5.Civil penalties. (a) A civil citation issued under this section must impose the following penalty amounts:
(1) for transporting aquatic macrophytes in violation of section 84D.09, $100;
…

Presumably, the $30 is additional administrative fees added to the $100 penalty amount.

However, the county attorney’s office has decided to change the penalty from this civil violation to the one appropriate for a criminal violation: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=84D.13#stat.84D.13.3

That’s chapter 84D, section 84D.13, subdivision 3, of which the first lettered item reads:

…
Subd. 3.Criminal penalties. (a) A person who violates a provision of sections 84D.03 or 84D.06 to 84D.11, or a rule adopted under section 84D.12, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
…

A careful reading of this shows that even though 84D.09 is not present, it is included due to the phrase “84D.06 to 84D.11”. That represents a range of sections, including 84D.09.

When I wrote the above post, I was not aware that 84D.09 was included under the criminal penalties subdivision. Again, I was told it was a $130 penalty and that I could contest it in court.

Fast forward to earlier this week. I received a the formal written complaint that I had requested 2 weeks prior, at the first appearance at the courthouse. I requested this because all I had was an illegible hand-written citation. The charge and penalty listed on that complaint is:

…
Charge: DNR – Aquatic Macrophytes – Transport Prohibited
In Violation of: 84D.09 Subd. 1
Penalty: 90 Days Jail and/or $1,000 Fine
…

I was able to speak to someone in the county attorney’s office on Friday. I explained that the penalty had been changed from the civil violation, with a fine of $130 to a criminal violation with the possibility of a much larger fine and/or 90 days in jail. I was told it was always considered a criminal violation and that is the maximum fine for a misdemeanor. I was told that I will not find out the penalty being pursued, most likely, until a few days before the pretrial date. I was told that any problem I had with being told that it was a $130 fine, that I could contest that in court, and now being a much greater penalty, including possible jail time, should be taken up with the judge.

I am posting this both as an update for those following this case and as an informational service for others (this is not legal advice). It doesn’t matter if you are from Minnesota and traveling in Minnesota, from Minnesota and traveling to a location outside the state, from another location and traveling to Minnesota, or from another location and traveling through Minnesota to get to another location.

It would appear, if they so desire, a Minnesota county prosecutor can try to put you in jail for 90 days and fine you $1,000 if you get a citation for having any amount of non-invasive species of plant on your watercraft equipment after leaving a boat access and you contest that citation in court. For some reason, some people may feel that contesting being accused of a crime is a bad thing. In fact, it is your right under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment):

…
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
…

And in the case of Minnesota, your right under Article 1, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution:

…
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law, and no person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. All persons before conviction shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless the public safety requires it in case of rebellion or invasion.
…

Will this Minnesota prosecutor pursue the maximum penalty? Only time will tell. Will another Minnesota prosecutor pursue the maximum penalty? Only time will tell.

My question to you is, fines aside, should the government *be able* to put anyone in jail for 90 days because the person didn’t find and remove pieces of non-invasive aquatic plants from their watercraft equipment?

Thanks,
David

how else they gonna be able to gain the leverage necessary to wield absolute control over you ?

Have you thought to have them prove its a aquatic macrophytes? How do they know its not just some matted up weeds from you yard or blown up of the road onto the trailer. Tell them you washed and cleaned your trailer religiously and that was not on your trailer. Make them prove it was.

If you have to lie to prove your point…….
DT

Mike W wrote:

Have you thought to have them prove its a aquatic macrophytes? How do they know its not just some matted up weeds from you yard or blown up of the road onto the trailer. Tell them you washed and cleaned your trailer religiously and that was not on your trailer. Make them prove it was.

Thanks for your response, Mike.

I did ask them, at the time of the checkpoint, when they stated that *any* amount of weeds was a violation, how they would distinguish between yard weeds, where the trailer was parked, and lake weeds. They said they knew the weeds in question were lake weeds and that non-lake weeds would not be a violation.

I understand you are talking about how to face the legal challenge and I appreciate that.

My last post was less about weeds or no weeds and what that means or doesn’t mean to Minnesota lakes. It is about whether we want to allow this erosion of our rights with the roadside checkpoints and whether we want to allow a law that can put people in jail for 90 days for having a couple pieces of weeds on their boats/trailers, regardless of the type of weed or shellfish or how they got there.

Some people feel very strongly about slowing the spread of invasive species. Other people feel the horse is out of the barn and the effort should be put into removing the invasives when they do make it into a body of water. Yet others question whether humans should be standing in the way of mother nature at all. There is no objective right or wrong here, it is down to personal opinions. We can agree to disagree on these personal opinions. And that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have these discussions of our opinions — we should have those discussions.

What I’m trying to communicate here is that everyone who pulls a boat in Minnesota is at risk for very serious penalties regardless of how you feel about invasive species and how diligent you are about checking for them. I urge people, regardless of your opinions on invasive species, to push back against roadside checkpoints and excessive penalties.

Thanks,
David

deertracker wrote:

If you have to lie to prove your point…….
DT

when justice becomes unjust …